Re: No GCC summit this year?

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > Hello, > I am interested to attend GCC summit this year, but it doesn't seem > to happen, does it? Well - past attendees got date & location confirmation like "The Summit will be in Ottawa from October 25th to 27th, you should plan to arriv

Re: GCC 4.5.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > Dennis Clarke writes: > > > >> FYI , bug 44455 is a show stopper in the Solaris world. > >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455 > > > > This is > > > > bootstrap/44455 GCC fails to build if MPFR 3.0.0 (Release Candidate) is > used >

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Joe Buck wrote: > >> We might need to go in the other direction (less radical, but enough to >> solve the immediate problem).  What if only constraints files are >> dual-licensed (GPL3+ or GFDL) for now?  Then documentation can be >> generate

Re: optimization question: mpl

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Hite, Christopher wrote: > > > > I'm writing a decoder using a meta programming techniques alla > boost::mpl and I'd like to know if I'm asking too much of the compiler. > > Basically I've got lots of packet types with different ids.  The > classical way to write t

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: >> Steven Bosscher wrote: >> Why not just ignore RMS and the license issues and simply do what we think suits us and the project.  Let the FSF deal with the legal cons

GCC 4.5.2 Status Report (2010-07-31)

Status == GCC 4.5.1 has been released, the release will be announced after mirrors have catched up. The branch is now open for regression and documentation fixes again. Quality Data Priority # Change from Last Report --- ---

Re: Restrict qualifier still not working?

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Alexander Monakov [mailto:amona...@ispras.ru] >> Sent: 02 August 2010 17:48 >> To: Bingfeng Mei >> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Guenther >> Subject: Re: Restrict qualifi

Re: Restrict qualifier still not working?

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote: > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > >> Thanks, I can reproduce it with trunk compiler but not 4.5.0. >> Do you know how alias set are represented and used now. > > I'm not aware of any changes regarding alias sets. > >> It used

Re: Restrict qualifier still not working?

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > Richard, > I applied the patch. The simple example in my previous mail is > compiled as expected. However, for a bit more complex example, > restrict qualifier still doesn't work as expected. This happens > even on trunk compiler so it is not d

Re: Restrict qualifier still not working?

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 03 August 2010 17:22 >> To: Bingfeng Mei >> Cc: Alexander Monakov; gcc@gcc.gnu.org >> Subject

Re: Shouldn't alias_sets_conflict_p be replaced with rtx_refs_may_alias_p?

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > Hi, > alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine > whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set > number, which seems not correct with recent changes on alias > oracle. For example, in ddg.c cross-

Re: Shouldn't alias_sets_conflict_p be replaced with rtx_refs_may_alias_p?

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: >> Hi, >> alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine >> whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set >> number, which seems not correct with

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >   > I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with >   > keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options >   > for various architectures and systems that I think it makes >   > technical sense to have a "

Re: transitioning cloog to ppl-0.11

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > Ralf, >  Looking at Fedora 13 and Debian > unstable, I see that their gcc 4.4 > compilers are using -ldl to avoid > an explicit linkage on libppl_c, libppl > and libcloog. However this still leaves > them open to a mismatch should they > silent

Re: Bizarre GCC problem - how do I debug it?

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb writes: > > Bruce> That seems to work.  There are one or two or three bugs then. > Bruce> Either gdb needs to recognize an out of sync object code, or else > Bruce> gcc needs to produce object code that forces gdb to o

GCC 4.5.1 Released

The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.5.1 has been released. GCC 4.5.1 is a bug-fix release containing fixes for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.5.0. This release is available from the FTP servers listed at: http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html Please do not contact me directly regarding

Re: Can a front end pass information to the Value Range Propagation Pass ?

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Toon Moene wrote: > Recently, Thomas Koenig introduced an optimization in the Fortran Front End > that enables it do determine that in: > > subroutine foo(a,n,i,j) >  implicit none >  integer, intent(in) :: i,j,n >  real, dimension(20) :: a >  a(1:10) = a(i:j) >  ..

Re: Question about tree-switch-conversion.c

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Ian Bolton wrote: > I am in the process of fixing PR44328 > (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44328) > > The problem is that gen_inbound_check in tree-switch-conversion.c subtracts > info.range_min from info.index_expr, which can cause the MIN and MAX va

Re: Regarding the GCC Binaries and Build status pages

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > Dear GCC Team : > > This is just a friendly letter. There probably will not be another GCC > update from the Sunfreeware site ( which is still showing 3.4.6 ) for a > long time now that Oracle has pulled finances. The same sad state of > af

Re: Help for target with BITS_PER_UNIT = 16

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Mohamed Shafi wrote: > Hello all, > > I am trying to port GCC 4.5.1 for a processor that has the following > addressing capability: > > The data memory address space of 64K bytes is represented by a total > of 15 bits, with each address selecting a 16-bit element.

RE: Could we use VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR to build ADDR_EXPR ?

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Fang, Changpeng wrote: > > > > > >No you should not generate addresses for VCEs that contain a SSA_NAME. > > I think you should check if get_base_address is a > >is_gimple_addressable inside gather_memory_references_ref. > > There,

Re: Add uninitialized attribute?

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * H. J. Lu: > >> Sometime I have to do >> >> int x = 0; >> >> to silence gcc from uninitialized warnings when I know it is >> unnecessary. > > I guess the official idiom is > >  int x = x; That's what I thought as well, so I am confused.

Re: build: are there situations where 'ar' does not work?

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Ralf Wildenhues writes: > >> Now, to avoid issues when GCC uses newer Libtool: are there situations >> where running $AR does not work?  Cross compile?  In-tree binutils? > > It doesn't work when you use LTO without gold/linker-plugin. Sure i

Re: Change macro SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED to target hook TARGET_SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED?

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Mingjie Xing wrote: > Hello, > > I have a problem about the definition of SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED. MIPS > is a SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED target, and has it defined as 1. While > loongson-specific vector insns are not SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED. That > means that the macro dep

Re: Beginner: Declarations do not show up when iterating through Gimple stmts

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Jeff Saremi wrote: > I wanted to go through declarations in a function and print them out so as to > get more familiar with them before being able to manipulate them. > I wrote this function as a plugin; it successfully writes out all statements > but mysteriousl

Re: Clustering switch cases

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "Paulo J. Matos" writes: > >> In the first case, it generates a binary tree, and in the second two >> jump tables. The jump tables solution is much more elegant (at least >> in our situation), generating less code and being faster. >> Now

Re: Better performance on older version of GCC

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Corey Kasten wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 06:50 -0700, Nathan Froyd wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:44:25AM -0400, Corey Kasten wrote: >> > I find that the executable compiled on system A runs faster (on both >> > systems) than the executable compiled on sys

Re: Errors when invoking refs_may_alias_p_1

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Hongtao wrote: > Hi all, > > I have instrumented a function call like foo(&a,&b) into the gimple SSA > representation (gcc-4.5) and the consequent optimizations can not pass > my instrumented code. The back traces are as followings. The error > occurred when the pa

Re: Errors when invoking refs_may_alias_p_1

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Hongtao wrote: > On 08/27/10 12:35, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Hongtao wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have instrumented a function call like foo(&a,&b) into the gimple S

Re: Errors when invoking refs_may_alias_p_1

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Hongtao wrote: > On 08/27/10 14:29, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Hongtao wrote: >> >>> On 08/27/10 12:35, Richard Guenther wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Hongtao wrot

Re: Clustering switch cases

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Paul Brook wrote: >> > In fact we might want to move switch optimization up to the tree level >> > (just because it's way easier to deal with there).  Thus, lower switch >> > to a mixture of binary tree & jump-tables (possibly using perfect >> > hashing). >> >> Doin

Re: Clustering switch cases

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >>> >>> I'd kinda hope that doing the optimization at the tree level means >>> expand_case >>> doesn't have to handle both types.  The tree code converts spar

Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? > > > > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: > > > >• The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library > >

Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: >> >>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>> > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for

Re: Function-specific optimization flags and inlining

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > Hello, > I found that currently if a function with specific optimization flags is > inlined, > the flags are lost during compilation. This will happen much more often with > LTO (which still cannot handle it in bytecode). I wonder whether thi

Re: Question on TER

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Pat Haugen wrote: >  I'm looking into a case where TER is forward propagating a series of > additions across a call. > > extern void foo(void); > int bar(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h) { >  int ret; >  ret = a + b + c + d + e + f + g + h; >

Re: question on points-to analysis

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Amker.Cheng wrote: > Hi, > I am studying gcc's points-to analysis right now and encountered a question. > In paper "Off-line Variable Substitution for Scaling Points-to > Analysis", section 3.2 > It says that we should not substitute a variable with other if it is >

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> >   Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple >> > currently is >> > charged with maintaining their objc

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations... > ;-)  I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend > some effort on making clang work as a GCC front end. Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making "f

Re: GCC Bugzilla upgrade to version 3.6.2 in progress

2010/9/10 Frédéric Buclin : > Hi all, > > A test installation based on a copy of the GCC Bugzilla database > (snapshot taken yesterday, September 9) and upgraded to Bugzilla 3.6.2 > is now live at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/. > > Please give it a look, and file bugs related to missing or brok

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 10 September 2010 11:42, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher >> wrote: >> >>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations... &

Re: Frontend pass assumptions

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Hello, > > I am working on the new pass (previously discussed), to optimise switch > cases. > > I am almost finishing it, however, for practical reasons I am > implementing it first over GCC4.3 and once tested, will port it to svn > trunk an

Re: Frontend pass assumptions

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> >> Which is wrong.  You need to use block_stmt_iterator and >> bsi_remove and ... (I don't remember, 4.3 is so old). >> > > Or I could move the pass to be executed be

Re: Rebuilding the cfg

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Hello, > > On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for: > , > | int f(int n) > | { > |   switch(n) > |   { > |     case 0: f1("0"); break; > |     case 500: f2("500"); break; > |     case 1000: f3("1000"); break; > |

Re: Rebuilding the cfg

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for: >>> ,

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Manuel López-Ibáñez writes: > >> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less >> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs. > > From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to

Re: Dealing with basic blocks

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > > Hello all, > > I am moving basic blocks around and currently the cfg is getting very, > very awkward. My guess is that I am doing something I shouldn't [as > usual]. > > For each SWITCH_EXPR I found on the code I generate a CFG which I ha

Re: plugin hooks for plugin-provided builtins?

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > Hello All, > > I was thinking of adding a new plugin hook for builtins. > > The intuition is that some plugins could be pleased if they could add > their own plugins (much like today's plugins can add their own pragmas > or attributes)

Re: Updating frequencies and dominators

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:19, Paulo J. Matos wrote: >> How can I automatically update dominators? Or do I have to do it for >> each new basic_block I create with recompute_dominator? > > /* Free and compute again all the dominators informat

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes: >>> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less motivation fo

Re: plugin hooks for plugin-provided builtins?

C with the ability to take advantage of GPU > >> running their proprietary OpenCL compilers without asking the user to > >> learn OpenCL. > > > > My understanding is that Gimple does not have the notion of data parallel > > operations. > > There wa

Re: PHI nodes undefined

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes: > >> Is there a way I can rebuild PHI nodes info or what's the best way to >> keep track of this each time I change the CFG by adding/removing edges >> and adding new basic blocks? > > I found out

Re: Reverse mapping from decl uid

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Uday P. Khedker wrote: > > Given a tree node, we can get its uid by using DECL_UID(node). > > Given a uid, is it possible to directly get the tree node that > corresponds to it? I can of course make a list of nodes that I > am interested in but if there is an API,

Re: How to dump SSA in lto

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Hongtao wrote: >  Hi All, > > > I'm programming in the LTO phase. How can I dump the SSA representation > after a optimization of LTO? For example, if I would like to know the > effect of interprocedural pointer analysis(pass_ipa_pta), how can I dump > the SSA form

Re: How to dump SSA in lto

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Hongtao wrote: >  Thanks very much. But I still want an option to dump the SSA form > during or after LTO optimizations, such as -fdump-tree-... -fump-tree-... works for LTO optimizations as well. > Hongtao > > > On 09/21/10 10:07, Richard Gue

Re: Where are the new GCC releases?

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > Hello, > > Something tells me that GCC 4.4.5 and 4.5.2 should have been > released a long time ago, but I don't even see regular GCC > status updates. Are all release managers on leave? What is it that makes you feel that way? ;) Yeah,

Re: Interprocedural points-to analysis

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Hongtao wrote: >  Hi All, > > Has the interprocedural points-to analysis(pass-ipa-pta) been put into > practice, i.e. using the ipa points-to set to aid optimizations? Yes, it improves alias-analysis. The interface to optimizers is the same as local points-to an

Re: Bugzilla outage Thursday, September 23, 18:00GMT-21:00GMT

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jonathan Wakely writes: > >> Thank you, Frédéric, despite a few bug reports the upgrade went very >> smoothly and it's great that we have a modern version of Bugzilla now. >> >> Was it a conscious decision for the "Add me to CC list" chec

Re: eliminating mpc/mpfr and reducing gmp

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jay K wrote: > > Wow that is fast. > > > My fastest machine, and I have several slower: > > > gmp > time sh -c "CC=gcc-4.2 ./configure none-none-none -disable-shared > -enable-static && make && ssh r...@localhost \"cd `pwd` && make install\"" > real    2m2.594s >

Re: Worse code generated by PRE

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > Hello, > I have been examining a significant performance regression > between 4.5 and 4.4 in our port. I found that Partial Redundancy > Elimination introduced in 4.5 causes the issue. The following > pseudo code explains the problem: > > BB 3

Re: old aliasing bug: fixed?

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Albert Cahalan wrote: > int weird(float *fp){ >        // access an int as an int (see caller), >        // so not an aliasing violation >        return *(int*)fp; > } > int main(int argc, char *argv[]){ >        return weird((float*)&argc); > } > > I just tried th

GCC 4.6.0 Status Report (2010-09-30)

Status == GCC trunk will be in stage1 for roughly another four weeks. This felt like a good time to go over the existing list of regression and start to prioritize them according to our release criteria. This means that regressions on non-primary, non-secondary targets or for languages othe

Re: Map tree to properties

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Hongtao wrote: >  Hi All, > > Do we have a mechanism to map a tree or gimple to a series  of > properties so that we can transfer information from one pass to another? No. > Thanks, > Hongtao > Purdue Univeristy >

Re: constant string changed

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Phung Nguyen wrote: > How can I turn this optimization off? Use -fno-builtin-printf. Richard. > Phung > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0700, Phung Nguyen wrote: >>> When porting GCC on xc16x, I met

Re: %pc relative addressing of string literals/const data

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 10/05/2010 02:40 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> Especially one that doesn't require each function >> to calculate the GOT address in the function prologue(why is that so?) > > Because PIC code can be called from non-PIC code and becaus

Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, NightStrike wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, NightStrike wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dave Korn > > wrote: > >> On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: > >> > >>> The toolchain is broken once again here: > >>> > >>> x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFI

Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, NightStrike wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > Please also post results for the 4.5 branch.  I think it doesn't make > > any sense to include a target in the list of primary or secondary > > targets if it

Re: show size of stack needed by functions

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Joe Buck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 02:43:18PM -0700, Sebastian wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 H.J. Lu wrote: >> > gcc can not dump a callgraph.  Both GNU ld and gold can dump a >> > cross-reference table, which is not a call graph but could perhaps be >> >

Re: show size of stack needed by functions

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Sebastian wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 H.J. Lu wrote: >> GCC 4.6.0 has -fstack-usage. > Thanks. That's probably the reason I didn't find it in current manuals. > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> The mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org is for the develop

Re: LTO symtab sections vs. missing symbols (libcalls maybe?) and lto-plugin vs. COFF

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > >    Hello list, > >  When I compile this source with -flto: > >> extern int retval; >> int func (void) >> { >>   return retval; >> } > > ... the LTO symbol table contains both symbols: > >> /gnu/binutils/git.repo/obj/ld/test/func.o:     file for

Re: LTO symtab sections vs. missing symbols (libcalls maybe?) and lto-plugin vs. COFF

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > On 14/10/2010 15:44, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Dave Korn >> wrote: > >>>  Nor indeed is there any sign of puts, which is what the generated ltrans0.s >>> file ends up

Re: Hooks, macros and target configuration

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > My ongoing work to implement the multilib selection changes described > at will in due > course require option-related hooks to be shared between the driver > and the compilers proper (cc1

Re: old aliasing bug: fixed?

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Albert Cahalan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Albert Cahalan wrote: >>> int weird(float *fp){ >>>        // access an int as an int (see caller), >>>

Re: movmemm pattern

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > Question on movmemm: > > Given > > extern int *i, *j; > void foo (void) { memcpy (i, j, 10); } > > I would expect to see argument 4 (the shared alignment) to be sizeof(int) > since both argument are pointers to int.  What I get instead is 1.

Re: movmemm pattern

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > >> On 26/10/2010 17:16, Paul Koning wrote: >>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Dave Korn wrote: ... What happens if you dereference i and j before the memcpy in foo?  Do you the

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Dave Korn writes: > >>   What would be even nicer would be if we could share the same code-reader >> interface between lto and go (and the lto-plugin), thereby getting object >> format independence equally everywhere for no extra cost. >

Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 11/01/2010 04:06 AM, Geert Bosch wrote: >> >> On Oct 31, 2010, at 15:33, Steven Bosscher wrote: >>> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was >>> that there should be at least one default language that requires >>

Re: ipa on all files together

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Hongtao wrote: >  On 11/01/10 20:35, Diego Novillo wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 19:57, Hongtao wrote: >>>  Hi All, >>> >>> While using gcc-4.6 with option -flto, I found that interprocedural >>> analysis were performed on each source file separately. For exampl

Re: dg-require-effective-target & gcc.c-torture suite

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Steve Ellcey writes: > >> I tried creating a proc 'check_effective_target_mempcpy' >> in gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp and using >> >> /* { dg-require-effective-target mempcpy } */ >> >> on the test, but that did not work.  It appears

GCC 4.6.0 Development Stage 1 Ends Now, Stage 3 in effect immediately

We are hereby now officially in Stage 3 (general bugfixes only, no new features). We have accumulated 7 months worth of stage 1 development. Now it's a good time to concentrate on fixing the regressions we introduced and to flesh out fine details of new features. Happy bugfixing, Richard.

Re: Why is -fstrict-aliasing excluded from function "optimize" attribute?

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 11/03/2010 04:49 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: >> Hello, >> I came across an issue with function "optimize" attribute. The code is like: >> __attribute__((optimize("-fno-strict-aliasing"))) >> void foo() >> { >>    ... >> } >> >> When compiling wi

Re: GCC trunk revision 166285 passes SPEC CPU 2000/2006

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > FYI, GCC trunk revision 166285 passes SPEC CPU 2000/2006. > It is the first time in a month. Ship it! Richard.

Re: GCC vector extensions

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Hariharan Sandanagobalane wrote: > Hi Ian, > Thanks for your help. > > I switched to mainline and the vector extract works a treat. When i tried > vector set, it was still generating suboptimal code. Is this bit of code > still work in progress? I expect so. If yo

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Andreas Schwab writes: >> >> The asm fails to mention that it modifies *regs. > > It has a memory clobber, that should be enough, no? No. A memory clobber does not cover automatic storage. Btw, I can't see a testcase anywhere so I just assum

Re: integral overflow and integral conversions

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > Currently, the middle end seems to use the same rules for handling constant > overflow of integer arithmetic and conversion between integer types: set > TREE_OVERFLOW on the INTEGER_CST if the type is signed and the value doesn't > fit in the

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: >>> Andreas Schwab writes: >>>> >>>> The asm fails to mention that it modifies *regs. >>> >>> I

Re: named address spaces: addr_space_convert never called

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Georg Lay wrote: > Hi, I just started playing around with named address spaces for avr. > Besides general space (ram), I introduced a second one, __pgm, which > shall address program memory where also constants may live. avr is > havard architecture, and both progra

Re: PL/1 frontend

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Merrick, Thomas wrote: > I would like to resurrect the PL/1 frontend which appears to have stopped > development about 3 years ago.  I plan to start with the preprocessor, which > is a PL/1 subset interpreter. > > First of all, is this the correct list to ask que

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:21:50PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> So when Richard Gunther says "a memory clobber doesn't cover automatic >> storage", to me that very clearly spells "gcc is buggy as hell". >> Because automatic storage with it

Re: GCC-4.5.0 comparison with previous releases and LLVM-2.7 on SPEC2000 for x86/x86_64

2010/11/15 Jan Hubicka : >> For peak, FDO is the most effective option. It can boost performance >> by 7-10% depending on the program. The options you suggested probably >> won't make too big a dent.  -funroll-loops can hurt performance >> without profiling.  More aggressive inlining, ipa-cp, unswi

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/08/10 03:49, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Andi Kleen  wrote: >>> >>> Andreas Schwab  writes: >>>> >>>> The asm fails to mention that it modifies *reg

Re: non-algorithmic maintainers

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > We currently have 3 non-algorithmic maintainers: > > loop optimizer          Zdenek Dvorak           o...@ucw.cz > loop optimizer          Daniel Berlin           dber...@dberlin.org > libcpp                  Tom Tromey              tro...@r

Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/15/10 15:07, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jeff Law  wrote: >>> >>> On 11/08/10 03:49, Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:

Re: GCC-4.5.0 comparison with previous releases and LLVM-2.7 on SPEC2000 for x86/x86_64

2010/11/16 Jan Hubicka : >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> > Fortunately linker plugin solves the problem here and this is why I >> >> > want to >> >> > have it by default.  GCC then can do effectively -fwhole-program for >> >> > binaries >> >> > (since linker knows wh

Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Jeff Law wrote: > >> > I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and >> > one of the Java testers catches you, you still have an obligation to >> > fix the problem.  All we're changing is whe

Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Michael Matz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Jeff Law wrote: >> >>> > I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and >>>

Re: gccgo branch and darwin

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jack Howarth writes: > >> ps Is there a list of targets that the go compiler has been built on? > > It's been built and tested on x86 and x86_64 GNU/Linux and RTEMS. Huh, I wonder why we have frontends that do not even build for all pri

Re: more robust debug_bb?

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > Hello All, > > While debugging a MELT pass, I am sigsegv in debug_bb. > > The culprit is check_bb_profile which starts with >  if (profile_status == PROFILE_ABSENT) >    return; > and we have in basic-block.h > #define profile_status  

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > If we changed BITS_PER_UNIT into an ordinary piece-of-data 'hook', this > would not only cost a data load from the target vector, but would also > inhibit optimizations that replace division / modulo / multiply with shift > or mask operation

Re: RFD: hookizing BITS_PER_UNIT in tree optimizers / frontends

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Quoting Richard Guenther : > >> Well.  Some things really ought to stay as macros.  You can always >> error out if a multi-target compiler would have conflicts there at >> configure time. > > So what are we

<    10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   >